The internet has given rise to an informational landscape that challenges epistemological hierarchies between experts and lay people. Tensions regarding how to address the growing flora of counter-authority claims are pertinent in the context of health, where warnings about misinformation co-exist with notions of patient empowerment. This context accentuates the importance of revitalizing conceptualizations of how to assess the validity of knowledge claims. In this article, we put critical realist discussions on judgemental rationality into conversation with the case of a (...) group of women who claim that the contraceptive copper IUD may lead to side effects of a kind not recognized by medical authorities. Tracing our own path from radical uncertainty to regarding the women’s claims as a plausible hypothesis, we identify what we deem to be strengths and weaknesses of the women’s claims and pinpoint the judgementally rational grounds for this assessment. (shrink)

There are two overarching questions that guide this paper: What are some potential issues with the criterion for judgemental rationality as developed by Bhaskar? How can critical realism itself be justified without foundationalist assumptions or an infinite regress of justification? The paper considers how Bhaskar’s criterion for theory choice – developed in the natural sciences – can also be applied in the social sciences, how a criterion developed within epistemic relativity can be applied to overcome judgemental relativity, and explores justification (...) of critical realism and of research inspired by this philosophy of science. It will be argued that a fractal form of justification can be an important approach to justify critical realist philosophy and its meta-philosophy (or ‘the philosophy of philosophy’). I also seek to demonstrate that such fractal justification, and insights from other fractally coherent philosophies, can be helpful to provide answers to several of the issues with Bhaskar’s criterion for judgemental rationality that are presented. (shrink)

I shall argue that although ontology is important, we also have to pay attention to other features of the intellectual landscape, including epistemology and issues to do with judgemental rationalit...

Academic writings– writings that take place in academic settings, from undergraduate essays to research monographs – are social practices and methods of knowledge enquiry. In virtue of being social and epistemic, they should be of concern to critical realists because of critical realism's stratified approach to reality. By critiquing approaches to academic writing that can flatten reality, I propose that if academic writings were understood as ontologically stratified social practices, they could afford writers the rational judgement to make textual choices. (...) Specifically, I show there is the possibility to produce discourse that is different from standardized ‘objective' and ‘transparent' academic prose, which, inter alia, also has colonial roots. If academic writings were understood ontologically and epistemologically as practices and methods of enquiry that require writers (i.e. agents) to rationally judge what form their texts should take, this could further academic writing’s educative and emancipatory purpose of advancing knowledge and justice. (shrink)